This really is an excellent analysis. I didn’t know Allah had it in him. I may not like the ruling (and I don’t), but its a pretty in depth reading of the ruling. Read it all.
It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage
I will try and read the dissenting opinions later today and post on that.
About Jim Vicevich
Loading ...
